Meggie Foster

It’s no secret that the USDA’s National Animal ID System (NAIS) has encountered its fair share of critisism during its first six years on the drawing board. In fact, following hearing sessions hosted by the USDA last year, industry buffs called the program unworkable and unnecessary. Hence, in its current form, NAIS has been called off and USDA officials have rallied to create a new, more flexible framework for Animal Disease Traceability in the United States.

Under the new Animal Disease Traceability program (announced on Feb. 5), the framework will provide the basic tenets of an improved animal disease traceability capability in the United States. Specific USDA efforts will only apply to animals moved in interstate commerce; be administered by the states and Tribal Nations to provide more flexibility; encourage the use of lower-cost technology; and be implemented transparently through federal regulations. Specific details of the framework will be ironed in coming months.

So what is the point of this program and will it hinder or help farm operators?

According to the USDA, “Animal disease traceability, or knowing where diseased and at-risk animals are, where they’ve been, and when, is very important to make sure that there can be a rapid response when animal disease events take place.”

While this program will not prevent disease, the USDA believes with this type of framework, it will be indispensable to know where diseased and at-risk animals are during the event of an emergency response. The framework would also help limit the number of animals impacted by an outbreak and reduce economic strain on owners.

While the NAIS was criticized as being too costly and only benefiting large-scale producers, this new framework is actually designed to allow producers maximum flexibility, and therefore should in turn reduce the economic burden. Operators can work together with state agencies to determine what identification methods best meet their needs, while continuing to adhere to national standards and performance measures.

It should also be noted, that again, this framework will not be mandatory for all producers/animals. The USDA stated that they will not mandate a one-size fits-all approach to animal disease traceability. However, the program will require animal disease traceability for animals moving in interstate commerce.

Groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. believe this framework holds merit for its flexible approach to animal disease traceability, including greater state-involvement and choices in the use of technology, while the National Pork Board (NPB) contends support amongst its industry members for NAIS.

Previously, the Pork Checkoff's swine health committee, and the Committee's Animal ID Working Group, had supported the NAIS and incorporated elements of the program as a requirement in the industry's Pork Quality Assurance Plus® program. According to NPB, the recent announcement by USDA will “not change the Checkoff's reliance on a voluntary premises identification program as an integral part of swine health initiatives.”

Read more about the USDA Q&A on NAIS and the new animal disease traceability framework.

With recent national media reports painting grim pictures of the dairy industry and the use of antibiotics in farm animals, it seems the agriculture community has become a serious target in media circles run by the likes of CBS Evening News Correspondent Katie Couric. And whether we like it or not, Couric is a 
strong voice in millions of family homes across the United States, 
unfortunately she is sure to make an impact on consumers choices. To view
 Couric’s two-part special on the connection between animal antibiotics and 
food-borne illness, see Part 1, Part 2, and blog post.

In fact, for the past 10 years, agriculture has been under attack by animal
 activist groups, environmental groups and inquisitive and falsely-informed
 reporters across the nation. To combat the spread of myths and misinformation, 
farm groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Board have been promoting the connection between food and farm and encouraging 
farmers to speak up for agriculture for the very first time. There is still 
some skepticism in the industry, however, that these groups are being pressured
 to promote these new policies and programs not to help the farming community,
 but to help increase profit margins for food processors and distributors.

After doing a bit of research online, the most recent study I found relating to
 consumer perceptions about agriculture, was conducted in 2002: “Food and 
Farming,” as a partnership between AFBF and the Philip Morris Shared Solutions (TM) 
Agriculture Initiative. This study revealed that consumers are supportive of 
farmers and are open-minded as to the farmers’ point of view on how food is
 grown.

I
 also found a 2001 consumer study on the perceptions about pork from the Pork
 Checkoff. This study concluded that consumers are most concerned with price, 
meat quality and personal health and safety when purchasing meat. The study 
also confirmed consumers to be most interested in quality and taste than the 
process of meat production.

While 
both of these studies do confirm a definite interest in food quality and 
safety, it is not apparent that they care so intensely about the origin of
 their food and how their food is produced. However, these studies are nearly 10
 years old at this point and much has changed since that time. Particularly, the
 Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has catapulted to become the leading 
animal activist group with a multi-million dollar budget and a clear agenda to
 end animal agriculture. This as you may know, has had a tremendous effect on 
consumers’ views about how food is grown and processed today.

I decided to do a bit of my own research on this topic, by
 surveying my friends on Facebook this week. While this is by no means a true 
scientific consumer study, it does help to gather a bit of insight from a few 
interested Midwestern consumers. To protect identities, the comments below will
 not include names.

"As a complete non-ag 
person, I can tell you that it is becoming more and more important to me where 
my food comes from- especially as I plan and cook for my children. Knowing 
where it comes from and what goes in it (or doesn't) is important." – E.

"As a consumer I am
 VERY interested in where my food comes ... especially after reading the book Food
 Matters and just growing up by the (Buckeye Egg Farm) egg farm in LaRue 
(Ohio). I want to make sure I don't support businesses like that-- ones that 
have cruel animal practices and severely impact the environment negatively." –
A.

"As a consumer and as a parent, I really like 
to know where the food comes from that is going into my family. With the recent 
research supporting the theory that certain hormones and preservatives in food
 are causing serious health issues, anything from ADHD and Autism to our young
 girls developing more quickly and cancer, I think as consumers we deserve to 
know where our food is coming from." – K.

Spending at least one day off a month, or more is one of the most important items in operating a successful farm business, according to Albert Nunes, a CPA with Genske, Mulder & Co. from Modesto, Calif., who made a presentation on financial strategies to get through tough times during the Indiana Livestock, Grain and Forage Forum last week. In terms of family life, reducing the stress load and keeping a positive attitude, a vacation day or a bit of time off once a month can be tremendously beneficial, he explained.

So what does a vacation day or time off look like for a “typical” ag producer? For some, it may be spending a day with family, whether that be playing games, renting a movie or working on a family project such as a treehouse. Or, I happen to know quite a few farmers who enjoy an occasional nine holes of golf. My husband and I enjoy taking country drives and visiting with friends who live across the Midwest.

Growing up, my father who operated a small-scale dairy and grain operation enjoyed horseback riding, camping, fishing, skiing and traveling to cattle shows. Although, it wasn’t always easy to get him to finish chores and get in the car, we managed to take several family trips throughout my childhood.

If you’re still looking for ideas, I’d encourage you to contact your state tourism office, as they generally offer numerous promotional items and maps on wine tours, popular local tour attractions, parks, restaurant and hotel information. Find something you love to do for fun (outside of the farm) and make it a point to give yourself a vacation day once and a while.

Perhaps you love watching NFL football … get tickets to a game in the fall, I would recommend the Indianapolis Colts! Maybe you’ve always wanted to see the Grande Ole Opry … travel sites such as Expedia, Travelocity, Kayak and Orbitz are great for finding travel and vacation deals, especially at the last minute.

My final recommendation, design a “down time” yearly budget for 2010, and make it happen. For you. For your family. For your sanity!

A recently-released policy paper by Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy is questioning the United States’ biofuels policy, and rightly so. The paper, “Fundamentals of a Sustainable U.S. Biofuels Policy,” challenges the economic, environmental and logistical basis for ethanol production. To read the complete report, visit www.bakerinstitute.org/programs/energy-forum/ and make up your own mind, especially since the study was supported by a research grant provided by Chevron Technology Ventures.

U.S. biofuels policy is by no means, perfectly structured and many areas are in dire need of being revisited. In 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) that mandated production targets for “renewable fuels,” mainly biodiesel and ethanol produced from corn. The bill mandates production targets of 9 billion gallons of biofuels a year in 2008 and rising to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022. Corn ethanol is capped at 15 billion gallons a year in the law and recent legislative talk has nearly promised that under the Renewable Fuels Standard, the blending rate will transition from 10 percent ethanol (E-10) to a 15 percent blend (E-15) in domestic gasoline fuels. EISA also called for 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels production from biomass sources such as switchgrass, corn stover, etc. by 2022. Lofty goals by any account and all signs are pointing to the unachievable direction, according to many sources.

In contrast, countries such as Germany in the European Union (EU) are forging ahead with a goal to fulfill 50 percent of its energy needs through renewable resources by 2050, with the overall intention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Next year, all states in the EU have to implement the Renewable Energy Act and Germany has already been quite aggressive by meeting 18 percent of our energy needs with renewables (wind, solar, water and biomass),” said Dr. Hans-Jurgen Froese, deputy director for the German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection.

Officially adopted in 1991, EEG provides written incentives for commercial operators and farmers interested in the production of regenerative power, as well as energy recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No, I didn’t misspeak, Germany began making a move in the bioenergy arena in 1991, and EU policy does not focus as closely as corn ethanol as U.S. policy. For one simple reason, according to Froese, “corn ethanol is not economical.”

Broadly, the target for the EU is to nearly double the electric share from heat and power to 25 percent renewable resources by 2020 and increase the share of renewable energy in power regeneration to at least 30 percent by 2020.

Currently, renewable energy makes up only 7 percent of primary energy consumption in the EU. In 2008, Germany landed ahead of the curve with nearly 15 percent shared in renewable energies in the gross power consumption, tripling its number in the last three decades, according to Froese. Wind makes up for 44 percent, water power 23 percent, and around 29 percent of the power is generated from biomass. And while biomass in the United States, especially the Midwest, is defined as corn residue, wood, paper waste and cattle and hog manure; in Germany, biomass also includes rapeseed, wheat residue, grass and pasturelands.

As grain farmers in the Midwest begin to wrap-up an unusually long harvest, it’s finally time to cross one more thing off the list, but not without adding a few new “to dos.”

With increasing pressure from activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Farm Sanctuary and Greenpeace, farmers and many in agribusiness are realizing the importance of communicating to neighbors, civic leaders and those among the non-farm audience about what’s really going on behind those barn doors.

“The farm community needs to communicate and visit with neighbors to get the facts about farming out on a local level,” said Roger Berry, field director for the Alliance for the Future of Agriculture in Nebraska, who spoke during the National Farm-City Symposium in Indianapolis, Ind. in late November. “And we need to work together as much as possible, and not just within agriculture. We tend to overlook the vast majority of people who enjoy eating meat.”

One of the issues with that statement is … farmers are busy. I don’t know many farmers who don’t already work a seven-day week and 10-hour days; so fitting in time to attend community events, schedule farm tours and visits with civic leaders can be a challenging adjustment for many in the farm community to make. But there are some quick, easy suggestions to take baby steps into the community scene.

Echoing the advice from Berry, next time you stop by a local restaurant, coffee shop, even children’s athletic games, recitals and concerts, take a minute and chat with the person sitting next to you about your farm during half-time or intermission. Use this opportunity to dispel any myths about farm life that you’ve encountered during your career, and mention how it affects your family.

Another idea would be building a Facebook (www.facebook.com) and Twitter (www.twitter.com) account for your farm and adding photos and updates that would connect with consumers. An appropriate update may be “Today, the veterinarian is visiting for our monthly appointment. Our animals’ health, welfare and safety is extremely important for our farm.”

While President Obama is expected to focus on challenges in Afghanistan and a hefty new health care bill this week, many in the farm community are growingly concerned about the future of cap-and-trade legislation, and its implications for farmers. According to University of Illinois agricultural economist and environmental policy guru Madhu Khanna, there are both positive and negative consequences for American farmers in a climate bill that would define the nation’s first-ever mandatory limit on heat-trapping gases, in an effort to slow-down global warming effects.

“As it stands, agriculture is excluded from the caps, which would focus largely on reducing carbon emissions of major energy producers such as power-generating plants and fuel refineries,” Khanna said.

However, “those caps would lead to higher energy prices – and therefore higher fuel and fertilizer prices – which would raise farm-production costs,” he explained.

On the up side, Khanna expects that farmers could benefit from market-based payments for activities that sequester greenhouse gases (carbon), such as no-till farming or installing digesters that utilize methane on livestock farms, and convert it to energy. Additionally, farmers may also benefit from an increased demand for renewable fuels, which would spur higher prices for corn and other grain commodities. As a result, there could be a generous net increase in farm income for farm operators, he said.

“Some studies estimate that with carbon prices in the range of $30 per ton of carbon-dioxide, the agricultural sector could benefit by as much as $8 billion to $13 billion per year,” added Khanna.